Anna Duggar’s Dad Preaches Insanely Stupid Sermon About Slavery
Arkansas-based minister Mike Keller, who is associated with the Duggar family, is currently in the hot seat. This follows the emergence of clips on the internet showing him delivering a wild, wild sermon that is illogical and ignorant at best and steeped in racism at worst.
Keller is the father of Anna Duggar and the father-in-law of convicted pedophile Josh Duggar, who is currently serving a 12.5-year sentence for possessing CSAM. Showing his poor judgment, Keller previously penned a letter to the judge, pleading for leniency towards Duggar. He described him as “very gentle, kind and polite to everyone” and cited an instance where Duggar covered half the cost of a transmission repair for a customer at his dealership as a testament to his peaceful nature.
For a quarter of a century, Keller has volunteered in the prison system and occasionally performed guest sermons. During one such sermon at Fairpark Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, Keller recounted how he was advised by a pastor friend not to attend the January 6 rally at the Capitol building, citing it as a “trap.”
Heeding this advice, Keller says that he decided not to attend and then draws a wonky parallel between the wisdom of Republicans not protesting at the rally, to enslaved black folks in the 19th century not protesting either.
“Folks, I want to tell you; it is really simple. I’ll show you how to change America.”
A hundred-fifty years ago, or 200 years ago when the blacks were slaves. Did they ever go to Washington D .C. and have a rally 200 years ago to protest against slavery? Did they? No. What did they do? Well, a lot of good people in the plantations would say, ‘hey, it’s wintertime. Let’s let us help build a church for you, dear folk.’ And they loved them and taught them how to read so they could read the Bible. And here’s what the blacks did about 150 years ago.They humbled themselves. They prayed. They sought God’s face and they turned from their wicked ways. And God made slavery illegal through several white Presidents, right? It worked, didn’t it? They didn’t protest.
Maybe there’s a place for protest. I don’t know. But that was a wise pastor that warned his flock (not to attend the rally)”
There’s nothing to love there any everything to hate. Keller spins a revisionist tale where “good people on the plantations,” presumably slave owners, benevolently built churches for the enslaved Black community and taught them to read – specifically, the Bible. This narrative conveniently overlooks the well-documented reality that enslaved Black people were usually forbidden to learn to read, were generally denied their preferred religious practices, often had to construct their own living spaces, many that were in shambles, and were to the man terrorized and abused by their ‘Masters.’
Futher, his comments about how slaves didn’t protest but rather were rescued by Presidents afte rthey ‘turned from their wicked ways’ ignored the influential Black abolitionists who used their words and actions to fight for change, the courageous efforts of Black Underground Railroad conductors who risked their lives to help others escape to freedom, and the countless individuals who participated in slave rebellions across the U.S.
Perhaps most ignorantly, Keller also glossed over the fact that evil and abominable slave owners typically denied their human property the basic right of free movement and to travel at will- and were not so keen to let their slaves travel off to Washington to rally and protest their own captivity.
h/t to itsrowsdower on Tiktok for the original video.
About Author
I believe ending chattel slavery was indeed God’s doing, but not in the way Mr. Keller describes. He needs a history lesson. One of the main points of contention which led to the civil war was the fugitive slave acts, which were enacted because many slaves fled captivity. In that sense, and others, the war was about slavery, but not about ending slavery. That came to be later near the end of the war, and it was not fully ended in all states until after the war. But had no slaves ever fled captivity, that point of contention wouldn’t have existed.
I am making a great compensation from domestic 6580-7065 Dollars/week , which is astonishing beneath a year prior I was jobless in a unpleasant economy. I thank God each day I was favored with these informational and presently it’s my obligation to pay it forward and share it with Everybody,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.…………>> https://aprichs.blogspot.com
So Keller focuses too much on one side of what was going on at that time, and in response, you thought it would be helpful to do the same thing from the other perspective? Why don’t you just go down there are talk to him about it Matthew 18 style. Or did I miss the part where Jesus says to just whine publicly?
Matthew 18 is talking about trespasses between believers. It’s talking about sins against one another. It is not talking about sins against the Lord, nor is it talking about exposing and calling out false teaching.
“If your brother sins against you, …”
False teaching is a sin against the Lord. And when published publicly, it’s a sin against any and all who are misled. For this reason, I believe, public rebuke and correction is necessary. False teaching should be publicly rebuked and corrected, so that none are misled.
You can’t truly repent and turn away from false teaching without publicly correcting your errors.
Just kneeling at the altar and privately asking for forgiveness, while many remain misled, doesn’t cut the mustard. If a man truly repents, he will seek to correct such errors just as publicly as he spoke them.
The Apostles handled false teaching in the same manner. They publicly called out the false teaching, explained why it was false teaching, and in many cases named names. Following Jesus’ example also, who did the same, publicly rebuking the false-teaching pharisees where everyone could see and hear. And I believe that is necessary. It’s a sin against the Lord. It’s a sin against all who are misled. And it is a sin against the church.
In this case the principle Mr. Keller was trying to convey is not necessarily unbliblical. But by misrepresenting history, it was deceitful. imo
Adding to my previous post. While he’s wrong from a historical standpoint, he’s not entirely wrong according to scripture. Had he been describing slavery in the roman empire, and how Christians ultimately ended the practice therein, he would’ve been more accurate.
Applicable scriptures include …
1 Peter 2:13-26
1 Corinthians 7:17-24
Colossians 4:1
Ephesians 6:5-9
The logic given in 1 Peter 2:20-25 is particularly applicable. The point being that ultimately the way we win is the same way Jesus won. Even when we lose, we still win. And that’s how the early church brought about the end of slavery in the roman empire.
And you think what Keller did in this context should be considered “false teaching”? I mean, he’s not even wrong on any point. It’s just a matter of the writer of this piece being offended by where he decided to put his emphasis.
He’s very wrong on the history. Chattel slavery was not peacefully ended in this country, as the early church ended it in the roman empire. The Biblical approach was not honored. It did not happen the way he describes. The protests of Jan. 6th don’t come close to comparing to a bloody civil war.
When was slavery ended in the Roman Empire?
You can look up the history, but beginning very early on the early church, following the lead of the Apostles, led first to recognition that slaves were not lesser “chattel” but were equal human beings before the Lord, as the Bible teaches. Once that fact is recognized and accepted then it’s only a matter of time before it basically disappears. In the case of the roman empire it pretty much waned out within about 4 centuries or so.
Some things that we would call slavery today, such as indentured servitude, remained, but simply working off a debt is not slavery in and of itself. It would be if the debtor were held captive, and so on. But it’s not necessarily slavery. Even today we have things like apprenticeships. College kids come in an work for free in order to gain experience and credits. We don’t call that slavery, and it isn’t slavery. If you read about the history of slavery in the Roman empire, it’s all going to be lumped into the same category, and judged via presentism, but the slavery practiced in Rome in 1 AD was nowhere near the same as “slavery” practiced on Rome in 500 AD, what little that might’ve still remained.
But chattel slavery, of the sort that existed here 200 years ago, the notion that a human being is the property of another, and held captive, did end.
People get sentenced to community service. Prisoners are put to work cleaning the side of the road, and are held captive. People volunteer to work for free.
And we do things such as apprenticeship, volunteer work, etc. without any initial payment. So what’s the difference if there’s a signing bonus? And that signing bonus is called a “sale”? Well it depends, right. We talk about ball players being “sold” from one team to another, and they’re making millions. They’re bound to contracts, and so on. But they’re nowhere near being slaves.
All of us are bound to employment contracts, and are, in a sense, captive to those contracts. What if that contract involved a one-time initial payment of 5 million dollars, with an agreement to work for 10 years? Would you sign such a contract? Might depend on the terms, right? Would you be “selling” yourself into service? In a very real sense, yes you would. Would it be wrong from a Biblical standpoint? No, not wrong at all.
I could go on, but things such as this are not slavery. There’s more to slavery than just working without a paycheck, but often historians will lump such practices in with slavery, and will do so while prisoners are cleanup up the street right outside their window. Especially in cases where it serves a narrative, such as a desire to demonize Christians and to discredit God’s word. They’ll spin it.
But God’s way is to always change hearts and minds. It’s to fix heart problems. Again, 1 Peter 2, and other relevant scriptures, say it far better than I ever could.
If you had a son or daughter who immediately needed an expensive surgery in order to live, and you couldn’t qualify for a loan, and you couldn’t raise the money, and it were legal to “sell” yourself into indentured servitude, would you accept a payment of that amount plus a bit more enough to get you through up front, for a fair number of years of work, as long as the terms were fair and just, and the one to whom you would be obligated to do that work for that term was a good and trustworthy man who fears the Lord?
I would. In a heartbeat I would.
And this was done back then. People “sold” themselves into “slavery.” Yet what made it right or wrong was entirely dependent on the particular terms of the particular agreement, and whether or not those terms were honored. But historians will call it all “slavery”, and lump it all in with practices that are unquestionably wrong.
Doesn’t sound quite as bad when you look at it that way, right. The point is it all depends. The above scenario might be called “slavery” by society today, but is it wrong? No it isn’t.
Funny thing is they’ll bash patriarchy, when the first and foremost responsibility of patriarchs is to work to provide for his household and relatives.
” 7 Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” – 1 Tim. 5:7-8
It’s unquestionably service. It’s unquestionably service without pay. Is it slavery? No. Do we always want to do it? No. Are we compelled to do it? Yes. Are we captive to it? Yes. But we do it out of love and service to the Lord. It has the characteristics of slavery, yet we don’t call it slavery, with the only distinction being a condition of the heart.
You can take it further then and ask is it wrong to force a man to take care of his children. Well, we do it all day every day. Sentences for child support are rendered every day. No it is not wrong. If he doesn’t want to fulfill that responsibility he might feel like a slave, and call it slavery, but that’s too flipping bad, right. He’s got an obligation.
I could talk about this stuff for days on end. But I’ll stop here for now.
Verse 7 doesn’t say “suggest these things”. It doesn’t say “recommend these things”.
The Lord says we darned well better do the work we’re obligated to do.
Not popular these days, but it’s the truth. But I’d better shut up. I’ve posted enough on this thread.
Ultimately it all goes back to the fall, when Adam sinned. God changed all of creation, and said from now on you’re going to have to work to survive.
If we drop you off in the middle of nowhere, you’re going to have to work to survive. You’ve got to work to find water. You’ve got to work to find and hunt food. You’ve got to work to build shelter. You’ve got to work your tail off to survive.
Nowadays much of that is obscured, because of specialization, mass production, and so on, but the reality that one who can must and should work to survive has not changed and will not change until the Lord sets up His kingdom.
There’s no way to escape work. There are right ways and wrong ways. Fair agreements and unfair agreements. Impartiality and partiality. But since the fall we’re all in some sense enslaved to work.
So as it happened in Rome, Christians gained more influence, became Senators, eventually Emperors were Christians, and they started setting the rules for such agreements, bringing them in line with God’s standards and what His word says about it. It didn’t happen overnight, but it did happen.
Some historians will look back and say “slavery” never ended in the Roman empire, but the question is what is meant by the word slavery. What are the attributes that make it wrong? What are the characteristics of it? It’s not easy to define. When you boil it down, the wrong of it is unfair agreements, unjust agreements, involuntary agreements, captivity, failure to honor agreements, and so on. The question is what’s right and what’s wrong.
But I’ll shut up.
A millennia later, it didn’t work back into chattel slavery overnight either. It happened gradually. It wasn’t until the late 1600s that courts ruled an indentured servant, who had done nothing wrong, was the property of his master.
Prior to that it was done on occasion, but it was the consequence of wrongdoing. And of course, we still have that today. If someone does something wrong to you, which costs you, by civil law they can be bound to compensate you. And in many cases the amount is enough that it is, in a sense, a life sentence to work for you.
What if it’s a severe wrong? If a man murders another, leaving the murdered man’s family destitute, is it wrong to force the murderer to work in prison, with the fruit of his labor going directly to those he sinned against and left destitute? No, it isn’t wrong. And juries across this country issue verdicts in civil courts every day attesting to the fact that it isn’t wrong.
Now what happens if the one who is bound to service refuses? Well, in some cases even today he could be put in handcuffs and carted off to captivity. Is it wrong? Nope.
The point is you can see how it worked back into an institution that was wrong gradually over time. They didn’t just wake up one morning and say, “Hey I’ve got an idea. Let’s throw our Bible’s in the trash, round up these people over here, put them in chains, imprison them for having done nothing wrong, make them work for us for nothing, and beat them to death if they refuse.” That’s not how it happened. It began as indentured servitude. People contracting to work for their passage to the new world, and so on. And of course the colonists were also bound to agreements. In colonies that were actual colonies set up by the british crown, colonists were given passage, property, and so on, and then were expected to serve the british crown in return.
You have to set aside the knee-jerk scare word, and think about what’s actually right and wrong. Not everything modern society would call “slavery” is necessarily wrong.
Keller should have switched to spring water many years ago. The fluoride has taken full effect with this one.
While I believe this guy (whoever he is) has very poorly stated his views about both protesting and slavery, my biggest issue with this is the request for leniency of a known pedophile. January 6 was foolish and fruitless. No proof was offered of a “stolen election” (even if you 100% believe that to be the case), so that was an unwise political tantrum that resulted in 0 net gain. In the end, the minions sit in jail while a spoiled, “man of the flesh”, trust fund baby continues to whine about his many woes (most of them unforced errors and entitlement) while continuing to worship his own ego. They literally made a golden statue of him in 2021 for CPAC. I know I voted third party for the first time in 50 years after covid tyranny (he gave Fauci a commendation at the end of his presidency…so not “duped” so much as “complicit”), out of control spending that could only start the currently snowballing inflation caused by Biden, pro-homosexuality, support of red flag laws, preservation of DACA, and the First Steps Act that resulted in criminals running free…now he’s attacking Kaleigh, a six week abortion ban as “too harsh”, and conservatives that actually “do” rather than “boast” .(Desantis is anything but a globalist- that was more Trumpian slander like Cruz’s dad being a serial killer, but it doesn’t have to be founded for the gullible to remain true believers of their new religion. Yet again, though, the cultists are going to forsake the future for an ungodly narcissist and misplaced loyalty.)
In the same way, slaves storming the houses would not have worked out well for anyone. Thomas Sowell’s “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” is a great read. Prayer did more than violence or fits. While I think abolition was handled irresponsibly and through government overreach (violence/theft toward citizens and famine among slaves), it was only through prayer that many people were freed from bondage (always, still, and in many ways). That is why faith and not force is the answer, and it can be viewed by seeing the current state of non-Christian Liberia and slavery still existing in pagan nations to this day. Again, the point of contention of this should have clearly been his sympathy for someone sexualizing innocent children (unless he means leniency should mean no torture prior to execution- which he doesn’t).
I’m not sure the point of this article. No one is listening to “Anna Dugger’s dad” for spiritual guidance anyway. January 6th was as “hat with no cattle” as its whining figurehead (who has ignored the actual victims of the protest- I guess Kim Kardashian and Rihanna didn’t advise him to do anything for them like they did with his other “causes”). Violent uprising in the 19th century would not have led to emancipation. Next.
Mc, your comment is spot on.
Baloney!!!!
“were generally denied their preferred religious practices”
You mean their tribal African superstitions?